Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary
[EN] Several researchers have compared the efficacy of digital flashcards (DFs) versus paper flashcards (PFs) to improve L2 vocabulary and have concluded that using DFs is more effective (Azabdaftari & Mozaheb, 2012; Başoğlu & Akdemir, 2010; Kiliçkaya & Krajka, 2010). However...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2017 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| Repositorio: | RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/84411 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/84411 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | L2 vocabulary Flashcards Computer-assisted language learning EFL |
| id |
ES_a5eeeedb2199dbd44208fa95dcdb7eef |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/84411 |
| network_acronym_str |
ES |
| network_name_str |
España |
| repository_id_str |
|
| spelling |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabularyDizon, GilbertTang, DanielL2 vocabularyFlashcardsComputer-assisted language learningEFL[EN] Several researchers have compared the efficacy of digital flashcards (DFs) versus paper flashcards (PFs) to improve L2 vocabulary and have concluded that using DFs is more effective (Azabdaftari & Mozaheb, 2012; Başoğlu & Akdemir, 2010; Kiliçkaya & Krajka, 2010). However, these studies did not utilize vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) as a way to support the vocabulary development of those using PFs. This is significant because DFs often offer a range of features to promote vocabulary development, whereas PFs are much more basic; thus, learners who study via paper materials are at a disadvantage compared with those who use DFs. Given the success that VLSs have had in fostering L2 vocabulary enhancement (e.g., Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009), their incorporation could have influenced the previous studies. Therefore, one of the primary aims of this study was to find if there were significant differences in receptive and productive L2 vocabulary improvements between students who used PFs in conjunction with 3 VLSs – dropping, association, and oral rehearsal – and those who used the DF tools Quizlet and Cram. Additionally, the researchers examined the learners’ opinions to see if there was a preference for either study method. A total of 52 EFL students at two Japanese universities participated in the 12-week study. Pre- and post-tests were administered to measure the vocabulary gains in the PF group (n = 26) and the DF group (n = 26). Results from a paired t-test revealed that both groups made significant improvements in receptive and productive vocabulary. However, the difference between the gains was not significant, which contrasts with past comparison studies of DFs and PFs and highlights the importance of VLSs. A 10-item survey with closed and Likert-scale questions was also administered to determine the participants’ opinions towards the study methods. Higher levels of agreement were found in the experimental group, indicating that the students viewed DFs more favorably than PFs.Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaRepositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politècnica de València Riunet20172017-04-28journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501VoRhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/84411reponame:RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valénciainstname:Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV)Inglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:riunet.upv.es:10251/844112026-06-13T07:49:27Z |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary |
| title |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary |
| spellingShingle |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary Dizon, Gilbert L2 vocabulary Flashcards Computer-assisted language learning EFL |
| title_short |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary |
| title_full |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary |
| title_fullStr |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary |
| title_sort |
Comparing the efficacy of digital flashcards versus paper flashcards to improve receptive and productive L2 vocabulary |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Dizon, Gilbert Tang, Daniel |
| author |
Dizon, Gilbert |
| author_facet |
Dizon, Gilbert Tang, Daniel |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Tang, Daniel |
| author2_role |
author |
| dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politècnica de València Riunet |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
L2 vocabulary Flashcards Computer-assisted language learning EFL |
| topic |
L2 vocabulary Flashcards Computer-assisted language learning EFL |
| description |
[EN] Several researchers have compared the efficacy of digital flashcards (DFs) versus paper flashcards (PFs) to improve L2 vocabulary and have concluded that using DFs is more effective (Azabdaftari & Mozaheb, 2012; Başoğlu & Akdemir, 2010; Kiliçkaya & Krajka, 2010). However, these studies did not utilize vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) as a way to support the vocabulary development of those using PFs. This is significant because DFs often offer a range of features to promote vocabulary development, whereas PFs are much more basic; thus, learners who study via paper materials are at a disadvantage compared with those who use DFs. Given the success that VLSs have had in fostering L2 vocabulary enhancement (e.g., Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009), their incorporation could have influenced the previous studies. Therefore, one of the primary aims of this study was to find if there were significant differences in receptive and productive L2 vocabulary improvements between students who used PFs in conjunction with 3 VLSs – dropping, association, and oral rehearsal – and those who used the DF tools Quizlet and Cram. Additionally, the researchers examined the learners’ opinions to see if there was a preference for either study method. A total of 52 EFL students at two Japanese universities participated in the 12-week study. Pre- and post-tests were administered to measure the vocabulary gains in the PF group (n = 26) and the DF group (n = 26). Results from a paired t-test revealed that both groups made significant improvements in receptive and productive vocabulary. However, the difference between the gains was not significant, which contrasts with past comparison studies of DFs and PFs and highlights the importance of VLSs. A 10-item survey with closed and Likert-scale questions was also administered to determine the participants’ opinions towards the study methods. Higher levels of agreement were found in the experimental group, indicating that the students viewed DFs more favorably than PFs. |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017 2017-04-28 |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
journal article http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 VoR http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| format |
article |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/84411 |
| url |
https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/84411 |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
Inglés eng |
| language_invalid_str_mv |
Inglés |
| language |
eng |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
open access http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
open access http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universitat Politècnica de València |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universitat Politècnica de València |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia instname:Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| instname_str |
Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| reponame_str |
RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| collection |
RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
|
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
| _version_ |
1869415656440463360 |
| score |
15,301603 |